tv BOS Special Budget Finance Committee 8116 SFGTV August 19, 2016 11:00am-1:01pm PDT
>> >>[gavel] >> good afternoon everybody welcome to a special meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee. monday, august 1, 2016. my name is mark farrell i will be chairing this committee. i'm joined by katie tang as well as by supervisor norman yee and supervisor mar as well. i want to thank sfgov tv for covering the meeting today. mdm. clerk we have any announcements? >> please silence all cell phone electronic devices. >> thank you mdm. clerk. all
of you involved in our budget process this year as we started late today we just came from opposite signing with mayor we can only thank you for your participation at congratulations as well. with that mdm. clerk: one >> item number one, >>[reading code] >>thank you very much. i believe we have the mta to speak your? >> june supervisor. real estate development manager. thank you for editing in our proposal resolution. the nine year master license agreement with new cingular wireless pcs
llc, it is another new source of revenue for the agency. so we are not here to spend money today personally here to make money. and we thank you for taking the time to we have two very slight minor amendment to the purple soul that we would like to request. one is just completing the name has all an omission in it and adding the pcs, to then entered and the budget analyst will bring that up. also, a reference to the planning department a sequence determination committed by the sfmta a environmental agent. if you questions let me know. these agreements mure previously approved agreements back in november 2015. >> thank you. colleagues have any questions be one with the budget analyst report? can we go to that? >> good afternoon chairman farrell and members of as we
show on the page 3 there's a scale of rent paid for each of these altered the plan on having 75 polls at this time. the rents range from 4000-5300 polls to scale proposal over 50. our estimated revenue on this is $3.1 million over the nine years that the agreement based on average 2016 of that 4100 dollar purple. it goes up by 2% per year. if you have questions? we recommend approval >> okay. thank you will open this up to public comment. anyone wish to comment on item number one? not think so. public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> with that and have a motion supervisor tang >> thank good as i said on the past various different departments i can to support more of these companies utilizing existing city
property to put these antennas on versus deep inside communities in front of residences on. so, with that said i would like to make the motion to approve the minutes mta has approved and cement board as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation >> as a committee report did thank you mdm. clerk motion by supervisor tang. moved and seconded. we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk please call item number two >> item number two, >>[reading code] >> thank you mdm. clerk. i will turnover in the second two supervisor mar is a sponsor of this legislation before i do make a few comments on my own. given i think the nature of
this item for my perspective, this is one of the most misguided proposals i've seen during my time on the board of supervisors. it is one that will only serve to further divide us as a city. is that of building the necessary bridges oh keep us together and for learning anything from the national presidential debate there's a clear difference between those that want to divide us and pit us against each other as a country some our not welcome in our country, and those who wish to unite us and i believe we are stronger together. in san francisco this is no different. the past few years the number of actions in our city that sought to demonize the technology for causing if not all of the elements that we suffer as a city and for my perspective, the reality cannot be further from the tree. as a city, i don't think we should subscribe to the politics of donald trump and the republicans saying
certain people are not welcome here in san francisco. it's not the san francisco i do up and it's not the san francisco i believe in. members of our technology community are san franciscans. i believe for one believe we should embrace them and those one new to our city seek to engage them rather than demonize it is a philosophy i believe we should subscribe to at a national level and we should walk the walk and talk the talk here in san francisco as well. in terms of the legislation itself there's a few things i want to point out why i very much disagree with it. aside from his overall thesis. first of all, i will not support legislation that is going to seek to push us into the next recession here in san francisco. it may seem like a lifetime ago in our city but just a few years ago, in the great recession coming out of it when i first came into office in city hall, with double-digit unemployment in san francisco here locally and hundreds of millions of dollars a vital public service dollars were cut in the budget. i do not want to go back to those times. i would venture this war does not want to go back to those times either. during budget deliberations your committee a controller
controller emphasize it is to statistically we are extending the longest but not of economic growth as a city right now and dangerously close to having to the next recession just from a time lapse perspective. next economic junk turn whether we like it or not is going to come in i come up for one, will not support and don't want to see our board supporting policies that would push us in that direction. this policy has a two potential to do that. second, as i mentioned before my belief in scapegoating one specific industry one specific group of san franciscans. to me, it's un-american and it's on san franciscan. housing prices have today which we can speak on for volumes is not a black or not a result of this industry. it's due to lack of planning the of those that can be forged at least able to do everything in our power to remedy the situation i do want to stand by and let someone dialogue and pit one group of people against another here in
san francisco. third, from the history perspective what we don't over the past two years inside of city hall. just a couple of years ago and consensus fashion, the board of supervisors and the mayor came together to reform our city's outdated payroll tax and switch it to a gross receipts tax across the board. at the time we were the only major city in california to appear all tax. it was proven it was limiting job growth and new employment opportunities. over 70% of the voters of san francisco can together to approve this change. in just four short years later, were seeking to overturn that mandate . the idea for my perspective reinstituting a payroll tax it just simply the wrong direction. we know it will kill jobs and force companies to leave the city of san francisco. i simply don't understand why were going to be advancing policies that will hurt our city and not make it better. in addition, just before this committee convened earlier today, our comptroller's office and the office city chief economist released the report that would
this legislation would cost 1000 jobs. the city of san francisco and actually make housing less affordable. again, third-party analysis as this will make housing less affordable in san francisco. to me, this is more about politics than policy and seeking to further scapegoat a group of san franciscans i believe should embrace your innocent. we're better than this. i believe we should be focusing our efforts on existing measures on about and for that reason i will be supporting this measure today and if my colleagues the authors, don't do it themselves i would love to entertain a motion to table this item because i don't think this should see the light of day anymore in our secured with that, turnover two supervisor mar. >> they determine farrell. i'm glad that supervisor peskin is here. the other co-author supervisor david campos i'm not sure these hundred join us as well. i've never been associate with donald trump or calls
un-american before in my life. i will just say that when we hear from the public comments will you will hear from many communities that are not feeling the benefits of the five-year tech boom from our cities from small businesses to residence, seniors and disabled people and many hard-working san franciscans that are feeling the fear of losing their communities. i've never been called divisive as well and i know that the grassroot campaign we are building is about uniting communities and neighborhoods across the city could i will just say with supervisor peskin and campos and many of the committee coalition representatives from your jobs for justice san francisco, ace, lines of california community empowerment as the rising follows grass-roots
organizations within, coalition on homelessness and others, we are about building community. many of his call san francisco home because of the we cherish the vitality and ingenuity and creativity and diversity of our communities in the five years of the tech boom, though, have strained the affordability of living in the city for small business among four artists, for tenants, residence for small homeowners even. i think it's increasingly difficult for many working families seniors and disabled people to remain in their homes and the fears i can i have the fears, to, being pushed out of san francisco into another city because it's so unaffordable and i think there's a clear connection with the five years of the tech boom and the various tax breaks and benefits given to this one sector. i think, this is reasonable legislation that would make tech corporations and these are billion-dollar corporations and focus on the big tech corporations to pay their fair share in taxes so we
can better keep residence in their neighborhoods small businesses running and ensure everyone who call san francisco home can afford to live here not just a 1% with a .1%, for example. this measure we call the homelessness and housing impact tech tax. it assesses 1.5% workforce expenditure tax on large tech corporations based in san francisco. it funds affordable housing and homeless services. we also are considering a general tax that would not dedicate the funding but for this discussion is a special tax. it also, at this urging of supervisor peskin would reduce fees on small businesses because we know that small businesses are also bleeding in the city a budget and legislative analyst report in 2014 show that in the first tech boom i think we were losing about 500 businesses a year in the 90s, but by 2011
-2013 and 2014, we are losing about 4000 small businesses each year from the city. so, i think the relief introducing a fee on small businesses is one small part to address that bleeding of the small business sector as well. about measure would raise 120 potentially over $140 million and i think report you cited many people will speak to some of the data in it but also how we need a broader overreaching or override arching report looking more at the former housing benefits and looking more carefully at the impacts and the benefits of this housing and homelessness impact tax. the ballot measure brings in that 120-1 40 million to preserve affordable housing and to go towards homeless services as well. i think it is about requiring large tech companies to pay their fair share. it also helps address the industry's impact on the rising rent higher cost of
living and economic instability that i in many residents and small businesses the oh in san francisco. i also want to say, two, the city has offered as you know supervisor farrell billions of dollars in tax breaks to a handful of successful tech companies since 2011. i think eliminating a key source of revenue that would have helped improve our city i think the chronicles coverage from a few years ago the headline was companies avoid $34 million in city taxes thanks to the twitter tax break. there's been a number of other measures our board has passed as well that are that example of eliminating key source of revenue that helps improve our city. i think the tech boom also has priced many long-term residents, many seniors and people with disabilities as well as the merchants out of places to live and make a living. the tens of thousands of new tech employees earn on the average two times that of an average san
franciscan and in many ways, it's leading to an affordability crisis. i think right now the character of neighborhoods the soul of the city as some call, the beauty in the fabric of our beloved communities is been lost and i think we have to find solutions to address a. i think this is a reasonable one that provides concrete dedicated streams of funding for our affordable prices as well. i want to say, too, mom and pop shops and working families are facing that fear and we will hear from many in the audience and this is a simple measure that would require the large tech companies again to pay their fair share and provide him anyways options for many of the long-term residents to continue to stay and thrive in san francisco. with that i want to hand it over to supervisor peskin for his comments. >> supervisor peskin >> thank you chairman farrell.
the chairman's strong words notwithstanding, i don't think this is about demonizing any person or any organization it i think this is really a conversation that is overdue about san francisco business tax policy. i was around in the days when san francisco actually had an alternative tax structure where we had a gross receipts tax and a payroll tax. i was one of the members of the board who had to settle the lawsuit that was brought against the city and county that gave us hundreds of millions of dollars of liability, and as a result of that settlement, we abandoned our gross receipts alternative and ended up with a payroll tax that none of us, whether jim lazarus from the
chamber of commerce or progressive supervisor from the board of supervisors like i agree with chair farrell that we the payroll tax was a disincentive to drop growth in san francisco. in working with the comptroller's office in the city attorney's office, we tried to figure out a gross receipt structure which required a lot of research in years of work and ended up with the gross receipts that was passed on the ballot, which unfortunately, by the way, disproportionally impacted many of the small businesses as the registration fee went up significantly not by 10%, not by 5%, not by 20%, but i 100% the smallest businesses in san francisco, i know, because when i was off the board of supervisors i was one of them. whose business registration we went from $150 a year and $300 a year and below the gross receipts minimums. having said that, this is a conversation
good time has come. i think everybody in san francisco in the bay area while we welcome the jobs while we have accommodated big tech in many ways, knows that there are a handful of billion-dollar, plus companies that while they brought jobs, have had remarkable impact on the city. this is a conversation and whether we got it perfect, whether there's different ways and as a matter fact ted egan leads us on a potential other path, it is a conversation that i think we should all take very seriously, which is and i say this is somebody who voted with two other members of the board against the regressive sales tax measure that will be on the november ballot. i come from a background that says that the
people who are most well off in our society should help pay for the people were the least well off in our society. the aggressive sales tax that we put on the ballot this fortunately impacts the poorest people in our society. the tech tax like this, actually could help deal with some of the ills of society that have been exacerbated in this economic boom. whether or not this is the right way to do it, this is a conversation that is not going to go away. mr. egan says committee, let us look at the gross receipts data that is come in and perhaps it is about actually changing the incremental tax rates as a gross receipts tax for big tech companies, and 2018. having said that, i want to thank supervisor mar for having the courage to start this conversation. i hope that this will go >>[applause] to the
full board-i hope this will go to the full board if, for no other reason, that all of us can have the beginnings of this very important public policy conversation. then, let me say a few words about tech. like everything, it is not monolithic. there are small openings there are big companies. there are huge companies that have been incredibly philanthropic. there are tech titans who have been how should i say it nicely, polls in a china shop relative to politics in san francisco. who have had disproportionate outsize influence within this building and it is time for them to know that san francisco and this board of supervisors is willing to undertake that conversation. i think that is very american.
>> supervisor tang >> thank you supervisor peskin for recognizing, yes, the tech industry is not a monolithic industry many different players and types and sizes here in san francisco. one of the things i think i fundamentally have an issue with in terms of the proposed measure was some of the language in the. for example, when we are saying in this measure, that quote, that the knowledge he driven housing prices also brightens the diversity of our city cherishes because technology companies frequently to not employee workforce reflects the diversity of the city as a whole. more vulnerable populations and children disabled and seniors often rely on fixed income been hit hard by the housing christ or second the comment says quote-unquote revenue measures such as homeless and housing impacted technology facts establishing ordinance are needed to old technology companies accountable for housing availability and cost in san francisco and to provide
funding for affordable housing programs and homeless services. i quote those two parts of this because my fundamental issue has been we have attributed our housing challenge to just one industry. it is written very explicitly here is been done so. while i think there's many many issues that we face and that there may be some contributory factors come i don't think we should single-handedly say it just because of one industry that people are beating their houses and so did i to like supervisor mar am a renter and i also wonder what they'll be with to stay here in san francisco. so, with that said, i know there's been a lot of focus on the so-called quitter tax break for midmarket and supervisor farrell mention, it wasn't that long ago we were very dire circumstances here in san francisco and the reason why he was brought forth in the first place was because of that circumstance. so there was a reference to some of the impact that midmarket, sorry, central
market payroll solution had. so, i want to check in with the controllers office because i know those airport picking out about the impact of it and wanting to know, and yes some of these technology companies did get a break through this proposal which will the minor sin expire in 2019. but was also the next impact some of which i was fully positive to the city? >> [inaudible] >> that's fine. >> supervisor yee >> thank you chairman farrell. first of all, i want to say many of the issues that this ballot measure would help fund a really good causes. there's nothing in there that says
let's not fund these things. in fact, whenever we introduce ballot measures and ask for additional revenues, it's usually nobody arguing about because that would help funds. most of our discussion around revenue is always individually sort of frames whether it's fair or not there for somebody. when i voted against irwin went against the parcel tax to pay for trees, it was not so much i didn't want to pay for trees but i do not think it was fair to tax our homeowners to pay for the trees. i didn't say that [inaudible] a tax someone like homeowners to be a villain. i think we need to get away from that type of discussion. and
just say what it is we like about someone or not. when i went against the sales tax and i'm not against that we share more resources for transportation or to help the homeless, but i felt it was not the right thing to do in terms of who we are going to tax. so, i would keep my discussion yes these are good causes but i personally don't know, not convinced, that this form of taxation is something that i can support right now. and that i like to hear the arguments as much as possible. on this. >> supervisor mar >> i just want to respond to a couple of the quotations that chairman farrell brought all on jobs and i would just say that in my reading of the report
there is almost no job loss over a 20 year period or what supervisor farrell did not state that number stretched over 20 years so it's about a couple dozen jobs lost but the benefits are not in lysed as carefully, i think, when you invest in homeless services were the economic benefits of people that of homes and can be joining the workforce at times. also, the lack of an analysis when you funds more affordable housing so people have stability in their lives and it would be tens of thousands of units over for the housing that could be developed to small size acquisition fund were many other ways in the benefits of people been stable in their communities and serving their small businesses and neighborhoods i also think there is one other key point that was brought up by supervisor farrell. i think
though the report says housing may become less affordable for employees i think it's focused on the tech company employees large tech companies, if salaries are reduced for example. so, for tech employees, housing may become less affordable but for the rest of the population, more affordable housing really allows residents who do not work in the tech sector and are struggling to live in their homes in our city like many families i know in my neighborhood, that there are tremendous benefits and i think this analysis, and i think we'd other analysis, two independent ones, from hopefully some university researchers who have been looking at the tech sector
room in regionally around the companies but also its impact on the housing crisis. i don't subscribe to the notion that supervisor tang said it's only the tech sector but i think it's a major factor on the affordability crisis. i think an analysis that ignores the impact on housing costs of the significant increase in the supply of affordable housing that would be created from the 120-140 million dollars a year this would probably be the largest amount of affordable housing and even larger than the mayor's affordable housing bonds from years ago. i think the primary intent of the measure to create that for the housing and stabilize communities is not looked at by the controllers report and it's baffling to me that analysis, again ignoring the impact of the significant increase in of affordable housing and stability that creates an economic benefits to people as well. i think the last point i wanted to make was that i know amanda freed from the treasurer's office is here but my hope is we can have as supervisor peskin said beginning a dialogue on the impact of the tech boom did the last point i want to make from
the comptroller's report i was trying to put into context the 90s tech boom versus this current five years of a tech boom and it's like small potatoes from the 90s. i think the comptroller's report says that by 2015 the technology sector was three times as large words important as it was in at the height of the original.com boom. this legit a lot of suggestions it's more stable because of many different reasons and why the fear of a downturn is not as likely as it was from the 90s tech boom but i want to understand that more. but also the impacts on the affordability of our city as well. i guess, with that i would just say i'm looking forward to the dialogue and like supervisor peskin i would appreciate if this could move forward to the full board for dialogue even if it's voted with a negative recommendation by this committee.
>> thank you supervisor mar. i know this report is now quoted here in committee 10 egan is not hear our city chief economist but did want to offer todd rufo i know there was some comments on certain parts of the reports. mr. rufo maybe before you go i want to say a few comments in response to some of the dialogue here. agreed, this tech boom is very different than in the 1990s immolate 90s. the major differences the.com boom was based in silicon valley and this boom has been based in san francisco get that clearly the difference. the jobs are more here than they are in about it although silicon valley is going tremendously as well the same time. i think it puts a spotlight on the fact we don't produce enough housing in preparation for what the situation we have today and the supply-demand balances out of whack and are secured i do think it is the old political
trick your the board of supervisors when you disagree with a third-party report to question the author. you question the analysis behind it and i think for my perspective, teddy egan and rosen and whether i agree or disagree i do take them at face value. i think they've done as some of the comments are, there needs to be a lot more dialogue and discussion about this topic for my perspective reports ready for prime time is only ready for the board of supervisors to boat let alone the voters of san francisco. in any case and others might dialogue to come and i'm sorry mr. rufo for taking your time up >> thank you. todd rufo. as supervisor farrell's mentioned either member the debts of the great recession we had double-digit employment rate half billion dollar budget deficit and san francisco faced neighborhoods with empty storefronts and uncertain future. i will also number how bad those tough times were and deeply aware of the challenges that we as a city face today.
whether it is the housing crisis , the fear and worries of displacement for small businesses and nonprofits and the fact that there segments of the population of long-term employment in san francisco who sat out the economic cycle. oewd and sister agencies are working every day to address these challenges and drive shared prosperity for all the residents. however, with the greatest respect to supervisor mar web work closely with your set from believe this proposal's not the right solution. voters waited in 2012 and said taxing jobs is bad policy. more than 70% of the electorate at the time said to get rid of the payroll tax and moved to the gross receipts that. honestly this measure would bring back the tax on jobs and lead the only city in the region that taxes the payroll tax again putting this in a competitive disadvantage relative to those locations in
the businesses making choice about where to put those drops. i particularly am concerned about the types of jobs that would be moved out of san francisco get we've historically seen that as cost of san francisco go up businesses tend to choose the lower and middle wage jobs to move out of the city. these are exactly the jobs when he to keep in san francisco as a way to provide opportunities for residents. we have also seen that spending by technology companies as critical factor in providing employment opportunities and economic activity for those in the construction industry opening tech offices or small businesses providing food services for local, good within a third of our recent new jobs are these tech driven indirect jobs small businesses local manufacturers service providers and construction firms. last week the small business commission voted in opposition voted not to support this legislation. additionally, i too am concerned president the sets and specifically singling out specific industry for payroll tax. we brought before
this committee last year the economic strategy for the city which required by voters and this is not consistent with that economic strategy. other employers in the city and other industries would be rightfully concerned if there's a potential tax targeted towards a better industry as well. i worry what chilling effect that might have on employers looking to grow jobs and what that says it helps influence their decision would not to grow those drops in san francisco. finally, it is our assessment the proposals not a solution to the housing crisis. certainly the proposal does generate revenue to be spent on housing and homeless services but as chair farrell mentioned the comptroller's office report shows this would result in a decline in earnings for workers in every industry except the social services intercepted a decline in earnings. taking into account the decrease in housing prices
because almost everyone is earning less that's why the analysis of teddy egan chose the proposal would estimate housing more expensive on average. additionally, this proposal does not fundamentally address the fact that san francisco is a great place to live and people want to live here. if anything, moving tech jobs out of san francisco and those jobs locating outside of the city and elsewhere in the region would only serve to exacerbate our transportation challenges. since tech workers can so choose to live in san francisco i want to address one comment am not sure if the console others comptroller's office is it but we mustn't oh maxis tax vision the economic impact was $7.1 million in economic impact and it was from a three-year report teddy egan did. since some of the discussion if i may chairman farrell >> that one point >> yes >> at the time which was open to small business small businesses restaurants as well
as technology companies, at the time that legislation was passed, with the support from various all parts of the board of supervisors, the central market had the highest storefront vacancy rate in this. when the upper floors that were vacant and again i firmly believe and made others may disagree but i firmly believe that exclusion was critical to turn around and see the revitalization we see in the central market today. >> thank you mr. rufo supervisor mar >> i appreciate mr. rufo's comments but i believe think the report is so jobs focus it misses the point on the benefits of building more affordable housing and supporting homeless service. i think that's one of the critical weaknesses. it is also fear mongering that's going on in this committee on jobs and i would just repeat again the report concludes that it doesn't really cost jobs. it's only 870 jobs over 20 years
which to me calculated a couple dozen per year, but again that's bounced off the benefits of stabilizing neighborhoods, residents, and building more affordable housing for the city. the last thing i think, there's no comparison also with if we do nothing because i think right now if we do nothing will continue to see the bleeding of the artists and arts communities the small businesses as well, and since you mentioned small businesses mr. rufo, just want to repeat, visit the success of the budget analyst report from a couple years ago. during the.com boom of the 90s, we may have been losing about just looking at this number around 500 small businesses per year, but flash forward to 2013 and 2014, and we are losing about 3700 jobs a year. in 2014 was estimated we would lose 4400 small
businesses. i'm just wondering how you address that? if we do nothing we probably will see more of the bleeding of many of these sectors, which are also jobs and will also continue to see the fears that i am supervisor tang and others many of the residents here fear about losing the soul of our city as well. i'm just curious what you think? >> thank you supervisor mar. through the chair, one of the important aspects of the work were doing and partnering with your office in many ways supervisor as was everyone with a committee to provide assistance to small business and nonprofits and the reason we have been able to do that because of the strong economy and budget that is unprecedented size today. the tech community as well as other industries in the city are critical to driving job growth in tax revenue for the city and in turn, other spending elsewhere in the city. again helping us with the city's
ability to write this kind of services to our agencies and other agencies provide those services to small businesses and non-profits and others. again, think supervisor those are interlinked. but to that point, supervisors we'd been very specific very very specific and try to strengthen the connection between local businesses and large employers including technology companies. so, we see the one of our programs the business connect program were directly linking small manufacturers like granola and organic pastry company directly receiving contracts with technology companies in san francisco. that are doing local purchasing at small businesses. thank you >> supervisor peskin >> thank you chairman farrell. this may be a procedural question where is the city economist? >> he is not here today. >> okay. respectfully, to mr. rizzo and the chairman i totally appreciate having oewd
here but it's not a substitute for the city economist. and i take exception to the notion that it's a political trick when i can ask the city economist who produced the report in question this no political tricks here but there's a few things i want to say which is to the extent mr. rizzo, you hold as the head of the office of economic and workforce development this is not the right tax it's interesting to me that when city economist says the payroll tax is going to 4-500 jobs that's bad news. it's easy to say pearl tax? i'm in the payroll target the good news is that we are going to regain those of the public sector and we talk about training for the future because inevitably, there will be economic downturns whether it's because we have.com 2.0 bust or a
global recession, this is how the capitalist tenet works and that is what it is. i don't recall the office of economic and workforce develop coming to this board and saying, that the sales tax was something we should vote for. when you say this is not the right tax respectfully to the chair, what is? >> to the chair, this a different type of tax than the sales tax. this is a tax that focus on specifically identified codes identifying specific industries and specific we identified in a whereas clause. the sales tax is a broad-based tax. it applies to a range of businesses including technology companies and small businesses retailers and many others. i think that's the fundamental difference between those two taxes. just to clarify supervisor, i came up in response to the question from the chair waited to these office the office of economic and workforce develop an analysis proposal. it's in no way intended to be and in my up your represents the position of the current comptroller's
office. i would just siding publicly stated >> the only other thing i would say is that when the government through the board of supervisors i think was widespread support by the board and the mayor, to put for the gross receipts tax to supplant the payroll tax, the gross receipts tax was what before the voters indeed 70% of the voters voted for that. but as an admonition, i would caution that we should not put words in the mouth of the voters that they had an activity to the payroll tax. we bought them an entire new tax structure and they voted for it. i'm always a little careful about not speaking on behalf of the voters. >> okay. colleagues any further questions or comments? thank you did i know that we have a number will open this up to public comment it there's a lot of speaker cards to.
>> supervisor farrell either couple people asked to speak at first because they have to leave as well. could i call the cards is the lead author? i will add osama mccall >>[calling names]. >> hello. board of supervisors. my name is gilbert williams and i'm a native speed san franciscan. i live in the excelsior district am also a member of ace. first the welcome i like to say to supervisor farrell, isn't it true that you are heavily invested in the tech industry yourself? do you think that
you should actually be able to hear this? this issue? anyway, i'm in 100% support of the tax on the tech industry. i just think they need to pay their fair share but i want to take issue as a san franciscan and somebody seen this whole tech industry take over our city. with her diverse city problem. the tech industry as a whole employs approximately 4% latino and 2% african american. let me repeat that. 4% with tino, and 2% africa american. at the same time, it's at least partly responsible for the displacement of thousands of latino and african americans
and working poor all over the city. as a taxpayer, the general build o'connor drive a small business here. and a latino, born and raised in the city, i have a real problem knowing my tax dollars are subsidizing an industry that does not hire people of color. to me, this is just simply unacceptable. let me say this. what kind of message as a city government are we sending to our young latino and african-american san franciscans that we are okay with the single biggest industry in our city that not only does not hire you, but it's also okay within them taking you out of the homes >> thank you, sir. next speaker >>[applause] >> hello. thank you eric mar
for inviting us here. i appreciate it. i just have to, my nurse. because i was supervisor farrell, i'm going to look at you i know you're busy looking at the computer. you know, one thing about me i love the culture of respect but i was very offended and had to meditate back there and, my nurse because it was very offended that you would compare me, including a group of people supporting this tax, tax tax, to donald trump and his culture of fear and hate. because, you know, we are not doing that. we are basically addressing the
fact. this is the only city, the first city, that i have lived in as an immigrant longer than a year or to get either living in san francisco for 10 years. for me, it is more than just a residence it is my home. i am a teacher. i also volunteer and serve on the jonah commission and some committees for the city. unpaid. even on top of my duties. in 09-10, i been trying to buy a home. at that time, anglicized and late hugh was not desired but it's basically the last working-class community inhabited living there for 10 years. having tried to buy on their sins
from jobs for justices be. we will work with more than 20 groups who are comprised of teachers, nurses, service workers, city workers, workers who make the city run and who are being displaced. i hear the supervisor say the tax will divide us. i would just say all us know that the divide is already here and it's growing and that is the problem that we face. this is the city were 99-year-old senior name iris-is facing a vision not about her. it's not about just one indigent cases it is about other seniors. this is about an entire city that is going wrong. we have a project people think we can build our way out of the project the project in the mission 494 square units are selling for 644 g. we have two bedrooms at that place 19 for $7500. the huge majority of us cannot afford this. right
the venture capital point into the city. this is not about getting one group of people against each other. this is about corporations paying their fair share. we have uber valued at $66 billion right. this tax is a first step get this the way to bridge the divide by having corporate tech corporations pay their fair share and the fear mongering we are hearing of trump being either out the fear mongering is happening by the opposition by tech companies and their fun people saying would lose 1000 jobs when actually it's 870 jobs over 20 years. meanwhile, this tax will generate $2.3 billion over 20 years. that is a housing benefit right. thank you. >>[applause] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon my name is tony vogel as good i work with senior and disability action. the tech sector has thrived in san francisco. for some, it has been a windfall in millions perhaps billions of dollars.
but the success of the city's tech industry has had negative impacts. the influx of tech workers have driven up rents and forcing many who were once housed into homelessness. in the last five years, either actions have risen nearly 50%. median area rents for one bedroom have eclipsed the $3500 mark. seniors have been hard hit by a housing affordability crisis. with the income inequality gap swelling with tech corporations benefiting from tax breaks while taking in millions of dollars in profit, it is time protect to take responsibility for its share of the crisis it helped to create. per instance, seniors on ssi have not got a raise and they live on a paltry sum up $892.40 a month. that's about $14,000 a year in the city where rents
are increasing. delia este abc seniors evicted were whose housing stability is threatened. we call the tech industry to share in the responsibility for our current prices with the revenue that can be raised per instance funds can be used for housing through the community land trust that can purchase buildings. again, tech needs to put the word, share, into practice. so that it doesn't unlike the millennial tilt to the benefit of one section of our community at the expense of another. it is sharing responsibility, not demonizing. thank you very much >>[applause] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is-, political court, nader at san francisco rise. i am here to speak in support of the tech tax on technology companies. on affordable housing and homeless services
good i am also here to speak as somebody who has worked for many years in the tech companies as an engineer who fully supports this. our city is facing growing inequality is not controversial. the type that room has raised a few individual boats leaving most of us in the mire of growing poverty. tens of thousands of handsomely paid technology workers are reshaping our city's housing market. this is a fact. the result is hundreds of thousands of working-class families in our city are struggling to stay in their homes and streets are simply exiled from the city that night either helped build or actually concretely trying to build right now. san francisco's should not be treated like externalities by tech models and venture capitalists. the proposed tax on technology companies is a modest modest amount for the sector that is making billions. but the 120
million it will raise a year would have a significant positive impact in addressing the consequences that the tech sector successes brought on san francisco. this tax is truly a fair share tax it's a practical solution to our crisis. please, allow voters to have their speak this november. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> conducting supervised. thank you for me to speak my name is cindy. i'm here speak in behalf of the housing rights committee. i live in district 9 and i work in our office in the richmond. at housing rights committee we [inaudible] in the morning and are hours we have seen displacement happening by any means necessary and what that means actually in the richmond we are seeing [inaudible] in the case according to the housing balance report published by the city. by us having
unprecedented rate and also harassment. tenants are being harassed for being able to stay in their home. we've only been out in the richmond for the past six months but we've been following some of these evictions. we see units that were previously rented for 500-600, 700 seniors who been there for a long time go back on the market for thousand, 2000 $3000. these units are being marketed as being close to tech shuttles and for highway truckers. on the doors of our church was seen different homeless folks sleeping on the porch where we share this basic and sometimes different people sometimes the same people. when tech industries are able to pay their fair share we will fund programs like the community land trust it we do a lot of work with the community land trust we are actually working with him on a building in supervisor farrell district on california and lines. this building we have three itself four-story building and the of the kind of thing three black women living there for 15 years. but one tech pays there
should go find more of these programs and the richmond working six different buildings were doing the same thing. trying to get return their ownership of the building to the tenants. the ability to stabilize tenants like this is directly related to tech paying their fair share. thank you. >> thank you very much. i hope next speaker. i will call a few other cards. >>[calling names]. >> hello. my name is sylvester-i am a homeowner. i've owned a home since 1971 [inaudible] i have been paying taxes all this time and also in 2010, i nearly lost my home. after paying the bank, getting these bad loans and i'm a
member of a's and they told me also the supervisor did, i have come to speak of for you before-but i am really done a really outraged that-how come i don't get a tax breaks. i have been owning this home since i been paying taxes since 1971 and i feel like discriminated. that everybody else gets some sectors get a tax break and we don't. parking meters are rising up because you're not collecting the taxes because the city needs to collect the taxes. it's very difficult to live in san francisco, now. i'm on a fixed income. it's so difficult now. everywhere you go. my neighbors, my child he doesn't have any friends
anymore. this is where i am asking you, [inaudible] also i'm paying a lot of interest in i still can't get a home equity loan because i make so little money. i should be treated more fairly. thank you. i do appreciate what you been doing. i been here for four years. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>[applause] >> good afternoon. my name is ramon and i just want to bring the perspective of ima new worker did i said our job like three weeks ago in the city. unfortunately, i don't work for the tech industry so i have to
commute from very far away. this is, this i'm in favor of this tax because i feel like the best cities are cities that are mixed use. that have a diversity of income and a diversity of people. with this, when you have an industry like the tech industry or finance industry and you accumulate all these workers in one place, you are going to have also like secondary job growth in other sectors and if you don't build the housing that those workers can live in, then they're gone have to commute and they're going to contribute to pollution and also going to stress our transportation system. that is one of the concerns. the other thing is, a tax break for a company that
makes billions of dollars, it's like socialism for the rich and capitalism for people that actually work and stay here. so that is something i just want to stress that the board needs to think of all the workers, not just the tech industry workers. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. thanks for the opportunity to speak with you get my name is kathy derek. i've been a teacher at city college for 37 years and university of san francisco for 18 years. a resident of the district richmond district about 40 and i at 66 years old wonder if i'm going to get to live here anymore. i don't believe we are just being divided in the city. my friends and my family are being displaced. they're not in the city anymore and i believe were
[inaudible] i believe were asking an industry to get you to a problem to help find a solution. >>[applause]. when you say let's make the city better, mr. farrell i'm sorry i'm an old teacher. every class i have i'm sorry every class i have to signal would you please put your electronic devices away. i need your undivided attention. u2 supervisor tang i'm sorry but this is a frustrating as a citizen who pays taxes to come to talk to my representatives due to mr. yee. my school is in your district. do you know how insulting this is to everyone of us who comes up here to pour our house out to you. this is the problem with the tech industry. we don't look at each other anymore. we'll look at the poor people in the streets. but too busy looking at our gadgets. that's part of it. i think it's un-american to tear down homeless encampment and
steal the few belongings the poorest people in the city have. we need this tech tax. fair share tax that. i pay tax good i wanted to pay taxes. i'm tired of the wealthiest getting away would literally murder. in the city. thank you. >>[applause] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is leslie simon. i'm a member of a's and have also taught at city college. ashley for 40 years and a colleague of kathy's. one of the class i taught for many years women in the art introduced me to
working san francisco ardis. one of whom was yolanda lopez. now an internationally recognized chicano artist. she and her former partner renate yet as the originator of san francisco great popular day of the dead celebration and cofounder of the galleria and the rise of were facing eviction. due to community was not unlike the one thankfully propose today thank you eric mar and others, they're safe and secure in a longtime mission building. others are not so lucky. this past semester one of my students a san francisco public high school teacher had his well-deserved sabbatical frighteningly interrupted with the news that the building in which he, his wife, and others san francisco public school teacher, and the two children live was being sold. he knew his family was threatened. if they have to move out of the city, that's a loss of two more teachers. my daughter also the parent of two young children and the social worker in another local high school lives in a rent controlled apartments. if the building sells another loss to the city we all love. please, support this measure. which will keep ardis, teachers, social workers and other long-lived residents in
san francisco. it's only just the tech companies whose employees have intruded into the skyrocketing rents pay their fair share to prevent displacement of the people are rich and keep the city functioning for all of us. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. i will read a few more speaker cards. >>[calling names]. >> hello kitty good afternoon. my name is-. i been living in the city for a most 44 years. i live in a very nice place near [inaudible]. i just don't like to see my friend living in all sorts of death in the city. i would like the tech companies to give their fair share to the rising cost of living. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is
to razz. i live in has started not only big population in [inaudible] my own sister from chicago came last year. she is retired. i was not feeling well and she asked me to sign the paper, letting go my property in san francisco. you know, i'm still looking for a good lawyer to defend me because i cannot afford to pay anymore lawyers. they of the tenants and this is my problem now. i've also small business and home owner. thanks. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is sara jarman. i am a member of job for justice in the work of senior and disability action but today i be speaking for myself and i'll try not to cry.
i lived here for the majority over the last 20 years. my husband is the grandson and son of chinese immigrants to the city. we just recently had to move to oakland because we cannot afford to rent here. in san francisco anymore. he's a city librarian i work at a nonprofit we cannot afford to live in san francisco. for me, i feel very strongly that everyone should have the right to live in san francisco. i look around my neighborhood that they come not allowed to live here anymore. this is not a neighborhood for me. this is how i feel as a middle-class person i can only imagine and know about the struggles that people are dealing with were living on fixed incomes and low income in the city. it is always been the case in san francisco has been a leader on progressive issues. revolutionary issues in this country. we have got the tech industry to town. we just bought a lot of economic benefits. it has been
beneficial for some people within the city. that is to brought in more money to pay for social services, but the truth is, they need to pay their fair share. from what i been reading, even people within the tech industry would agree that they should be paying their fair share. i don't think it's a monolithic thing but the tech industry is afraid and they will leave if they have to pay. i think it only makes sense to pay tax on the people that have not been fully taxed >> good afternoon i'm speaking for the northeast counter committee which we formed in 2013 when 20 was received i was
active actions in one street. within another year another 59 people disappeared from our neighborhood. within four blocks of my home at that time. it's about the dismantling of a close-knit community where we always looked after each other with stories told of someone who lost their job lost their home and have children but someone who had money stepped up and limp the money and then said, you pay it forward to the uk to the next guy that goes through that. we can't do that today. those of us who never had much money it's been you did in deeds. he looked after one another that you do what you could go into the grocery store to pick up things. it is what you 08 community. the young techies who have recently moved into the neighborhood moved in and out are gone. they
are gone from early in the morning until late at night. they don't know the neighborhood. they regret they don't even know the neighborhood that they are living in for a couple of years because there never there. so, one way to say they can contribute to the community just as we've always done the weather was money were deeds, is to pay a fair share in tax. this is not asking too much. this is asking to participate in your community in a way that you can just as others have always done. so, i fully support this and i think supervisor mar campos and peskin for bringing this all. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon supervisors. my name is jean i serve on the board of supervisors for the land trust.
for four years am a working artist and i've also been displaced by employees that moved here from out-of-state the work for genentech did i feel like i represented intersection of many interesting. clearly, this is an emotional and complex issue. i just want to address some facts good earlier supervisor mar you talked about tonight have some university researchers discuss actual statistics. with that does exist. they are graduate students that are involved in the inky of action mapping project and they've shown that between 2011 and 2012 no-fault evictions increased 47% between 2012 and 2013, no-fault evictions increased 57% and 71% of those evictions were in a four block radius of tech shuttles. i feel like were getting into this us-them kind of divisive speech. chairman farrell you brought that up as your opening remarks. i feel like we've seen this a lot as housing while organizers and residents in the city and it's not really about
tech. it's about entitlements. i personally define entitlement when people are not given the same treatment right. you know, tech workers that they don't want to be demonized either as other people have commented to a lot of tech workers feel if they were not given such entitled especially treatment than they would not be so demonized by other longer-term citizens. so, yes, it is complex but i think as peskin we much earlier, this is a conversation that needs to be had. i really hope we give it some thoughtful contemplation and don't just kill it right now. thank you. >> thank you. i have some other speaker cards. >>[calling names] >> i'm john west that i work with a cynical south of market.
the city rainout is pretty lonely place for me. thank you my friends from childhood want to come back or can come back. i'm also students which is a well spring of a lot of the ideology also the employees and the businesses. the tech industries i know pretty well for me this is not about those fine tech workers. my friends they don't want to move to the city and paid 6000-$7000 a month on an apartment affordability in the cities will pump a lot of people much as the people here. i would also like to add unsetting chemistry there. i want to come back and i want to teach your psyche me close to my family. i don't think that's a possibility anymore. they tech tax is not something that the punishment coming out of the blue. to vilify tech companies comedies like twitter have been tremendously from tax breaks for you. it's time to pay their fair share of is more useful to think of the tech tax as a means to that end and permanent reliable funding affordable housing needs to grow.
reducing this to a supply and demand question for me is not going to into the problem. this is a chance to get serious about fighting displacement and the tech tax is a call on the tech high-tech sector to step up and come up with some attachment is immeasurable damage that industries them to people here in this room. i also want to end by saying among nations not metropolitan areas emanations the bay area has the 19 highest gdp. not every city in the world can give everyone who lives there a decent life. san francisco can be a place of prosperity and i think we can do this. thanks. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is sylvia johnson. this tax should be leveled out. because i have
and i notice, like, some of you guys are not paying attention i think it's very disrespectful. i just don't understand why most of you guys are afraid to stand up to the tech companies. then, like why are you guys more likely to pass a bus proposal to put holes on top of buses then fix the homeless crisis that's going on right now? i also don't think-i think the tech tax is the right way to go. then, lastly, i don't think this certain supervisors should compare anybody to trump when the most like they have everything in common compared to trump more than any supervisor. >>[applause] thank you. >> so if some next speaker cards here. please come on up.
>>[calling names] >> hi. my name is sylvia-the visiting committee housing partnership today. a nonprofit on market that owns in or provide services as 16 properties in the fan. mission is to help homeless people secure housing becomes so sufficiently served over 1500 people every year. we do not hold an opinion on the proposed measure but we want to offer some thoughts as a nonprofit works closely with quite a few tech companies. to various partnerships. we do know tech, these are highly invested in san francisco donating over $112 million in the city alone in 2015. many companies across the city work collaboratively with nonprofits such as ours through their foundations and
corporate social responsibility paramus. community housing partnerships, tech partners include twitter google, and a lot of other smaller companies. they can provide invaluable support to our work. one example is that last year we were able to launch our -sorry-workforce training center with the sport of some of these companies which are custom all customizable classes based computer lab where clients build the skills required to enter the workforce after experiencing homelessness. again just some thoughts from us without an opinion on the measure. we know the board of supervisors has put a proposed sales tax increase on the ballot that if passed would provide $50 million to fund homelessness and housing. we believe having multiple measures with the same goals is confusing to voters. we worry more tax increases we propose the more likely it is they will all fail. thank you for your time. >> thanks very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is julian gall.
i'm an organizer with the community group a's. many of us are here today. we have hundreds of low and moderate income members all over san francisco. our involvement in the housing crisis goes back several years. several years ago and we haven't actually been calling for solutions from the city for several years. you know, a few years ago we were working to follow in the footsteps of richmond and implement a program that took the loans away from the investors that held some of the mortgages and give homeowners a chance to say prominently in the city. we were told that's not practical. that's not going to work. a couple years ago,
actually, last year, our bayview members went to the city and said we want you to work with us on a bayview 2020 plan that comes up with a plan to keep the remaining black population in san francisco and keep our bayview members with a home in their community. we were met with airlock door at city hall. we went last december and call for a down payment against displacement, $20 million for the small sites program for emergency funding and help for homeowners to stay in their homes. we were met with silence. here, we are back today with actually a very reasonable revenue-generating
proposal to fund programs that keep people in their homes and we are being told we are unfairly scapegoating the tech industry. frankie, were talking about a 1.5% payroll tax. this is a tiny amount. really just accounts developers have to pay an impact fee when-[inaudible] >> thank you,. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm i am emily [inaudible] we strongly encourage you to oppose this tech tax. the tax would put over 3600 jobs at risk across san francisco in all industry sectors and levels of income including middle wage and working class jobs. it could also significantly damage the competitive advantage in technology and innovation that san francisco has worked so hard to build over many years. this event is help the city grow employment by more than 150,000 jobs. since the
recession may, the fastest growing economies in the us. by taxing the payroll of the largest technology companies said be placing a tax on jobs. 1.5% payroll tax could depress employment in the city by 1% and estimated 693 jobs at risk along with him was because of jobs of the tech sector support. we urge you to reject the proposal that be severely detrimental to the san francisco of economy. thanks. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my ms. emily schaeffer and him be interim executive director of the jedi one appreciate your time. the time of the many people in this room. they do dialogue about an important issue in our community. your up is a nonprofit here in san francisco we have a campus in san jose and over 400 young adults across the bay area. we empower it else to move from
poverty to professional careers. the training and internship experience at which 98% of our adults are employed were in school full-time in four months of graduation. we have no position on the tech expo want to clear before the housing is a crucial issue for many bird dung adulthood are young adults are going to lose middle school roles in the tech companies. there a chance of earning a livable wage. right now one of the great challenges is the commute time competing with taking three buses to find opportunities here in san francisco. these are dislocated san francisco families. i also want to be clear the record accurately reflects the investment the technology industry makes in those same young adults through your object the last eight years we posted 702 internships at tech companies in san francisco. we have earned $16.8 million in internship sponsorship contributions, $6 million in donations and grants. we recognize this is a crucial issue for the city of san
francisco to tackle with in the coming year. >> thank you. >> >> good afternoon supervisor. my name is alex took representing sf-city technology advocacy organization over 1100 member companies and speak you in opposition to the proposed tech tax being considered for the november ballot. in the interest of time and the fact that many my points have been raised by supervisors farrell tang yee the as you to oppose but that's not only because the policy because because of the approach. supervisor thomas i do not question your passion were resolved the question whether was zero outreach to any these companies do dialogue about this proposal. to discuss ways to collaborate, to discuss innovative solutions to homelessness to engage in ideas and build partnerships not one phone call not one request did i cemented a package of letters from reputable nonprofits including clyde beatty ymca europe meals on wheels of san
francisco compass family services at united way of the bay area possibly opposing the policy but the approach. san francisco has always been welcoming and the city that knows how can simply do better. we humbly ask you to oppose the proposed tax and instead reach out to these companies and participate and work with governments on the challenges we all face as residents of this incredible city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is debbie wilmot director of development at hamilton family center. as i hope you know him up and family center is the go to expert on family homelessness here in san francisco. i also stand here as a single mother is been caring for a sick toddler the past three days. this days i don't think i can make it an exhausted discouraged and overwhelmed and get each morning i look at my little miracle and give thanks for her
and must draw the stunt to face another day. in both roles as a fundraiser for hamilton family center and as a single mom, i know full well the important but difficult work that we are tasked with in life cannot be done alone. both roles rely on the support of my community to tackle complex issues. andy family homelessness or raising my daughter to be a strong thoughtful and compassionate woman could hamilton family center has received tremendous community support since our inception. however the support we've received from the tech community over the past five years has been exceptional. salesforce has provided significant funding which helped us to expand our rapid rehousing program and quickly get more families than ever out of the shelter system and into permanent housing. 18 years ago excuse me 18 months ago, $1 million grant from google provided the seed funding for
one of a kind partnerships that we developed with the san francisco unified school district and the first year of the partnership we were able to reduce the average amount of time and family expenses homelessness by eight months. these investments are truly helping us move the dial in our work. the tech community is supported us in other ways as well. volunteers have led drives for children extensive homelessness and help serve meals and empowerment aided and teaches how to use our platform for more effectively spread their word about our work. at hamilton dems and were grateful for the myriad ways --because thank you, ma'am. before the next because i have my last speaker cards and animals that want to speak, please line up. >>[calling names] >> i am a little shy. i wasn't planning on speaking to my name is christine. i was born in san
francisco and i've seen the city change and businesses that were around for so many years as a risk rolling up and everything to my wicked close down because they can't afford the rent. i can only-i was able to still afford to live here by winning a lottery at an sro and i jokingly but soon as we tell my friend that lives somewhere else that might sro is the size of her bathroom and i'm serious. anyway, i am experiencing-i live in the mission district and i was going to the grocery store in my neighborhood and i was walking down the mission and young youngster said, hey, go back home. get out of here go back home. i live in the
mission. i was i remember when i was like five years old i lived around the corner from there also in the mission. then, i came across my birth certificate in my birth certificate i didn't remember what it says five castrate in the mission. so this guy was half my age. i was born and because of the gentrification that's going on i'm experiencing discrimination and not even part of the tech company. >>[applause] so i oppose [inaudible] >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is collect fletcher. i been a san francisco resident for 37 years and believe it or not i moved here because it was cheap place to live and to be an artist.
that's not the case anymore. i'm lucky enough to own my own home because my husband and i inherited money but most people are not in that position. i personally don't know all the details of this bill and i don't know the tech tax is necessarily the be-all and end-all for solving the many many problems that san francisco faces. but, i just need the board of supervisors to know what a serious problem we are facing in our city, and a lot of people are getting very rich and they need to give back. if supervisor farrell is concerned about demonization in politics maybe he could start by not calling everyone in this room a fascist does to compare us with donald trump is incredibly insulting and with very painful for me. i think a
lot of people he owes an apology. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello thank you my name is tamara dunn chief development officer at larkin street services. i want to thank you for your time supervisors and for everyone in this room to address this really really important issue. we do not have an opinion on the ballot measure that we are concerned the tech tax measure could negatively impact other important revenue measures meant to address homelessness in san francisco. one of the speaker said it was kind of confusing to have so many issues. while we like to see efforts to bridge the divide between technology companies in the community in san francisco this is a serious knee. we do have concerns about this measure. we want improvements to create effective collaboration between the technology committees in the community but were not sure
this is the mechanism to do so. we don't know. but street youth services is benefited greatly from the productive relationships and partnerships with some of the leading technology companies here in the bay area. over the past couple of years received $1 million in contributions that helped us launch really successful programs that help keep young people from becoming homeless and off the street. we also have over 1000 corporate volunteers to come and give thousands of hours of their time to help us meet our mission. so, we hope you understand our concerns over this measure. we look for to working with you to find effective ways that tech can partner with the city and support revenue solutions for housing and homelessness. thanks. >> data. next speaker, please. anyone else that wishes to speak during public comment please line up and we will take you in order >> hello. my name is carolyn boughton in i am speaking as a citizen not a representative of the organization i work for. which of the california nurses association. i was disconcerted
by a few of the comments made by folks did one person mention how much corporations that are here give in charity but that's great but they write off that charity and taxes, which then is a negative. >>[applause] why don't they just pay the tax endemicity and the people can determine how it gets spent to resolve the issue. another person talked about their counsel that so concerned well that counsel is made up of the raiders, construction companies, delta dental, bank capital, claremont partners, so of course they're going to be speaking against this tax. the fairest way to make sure that all of citizens are served is to tax those that they could benefit on the backs of all the citizens. not to let them beat
out contributions to this charity they deem is appropriate or that charity they deem appropriate. leave it to the leaders that we have voted into office to make those determinations. thank you. >>[applause] >> thank you very much. any other members of the public wish to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> supervisor tang >> i can do for to supervisor tim our first >> supervisor mar >> i would think is committee for hearing our community and having this hearing on this important measure. i went again thanks supervisor campos and peskin for joining me. i know this the beginning of dialogue on how we get at sfs share on large multibillion-dollar companies in the tech sector that had an impact so much on san francisco positive but also the challenges they've created as well. i want to also just
very quickly say that i appreciate all the different comments from neighborhoods and human stories of fears of what's happening in our city. i'm really putting the focus on what we do as a city on whether it's taxation but also solutions of others have said on how to move forward with stopping the bleeding and the displacement that's going on from within many of our communities. on questions of how we work together and rise above divisiveness come i think i'm definitely supportive of that. i'll be talking with alex burke after the meeting as well from sf-city and others. my hope though as this moves forward this is allowed to move to the full board for a full discussion in i know that we previous ballot measures we've seen that level of collegiality at this in this body and on other committees. i would just urge that same collegiality to
allow this to move forward. the last thing i would just say is as many of us in the community drafted this important ballot measure we do not see it as the end-all and the solution to the problem but a step forward to allow many of our neighborhoods to engage with the tech sector and others. i think reports can come out like mr. egan's, and i appreciate the hard work of a chief economist and the comptroller's office but also our budget and legislative analyst office and i really do think we need independent studies coming from university researchers looking at not only jobs and economy but also the housing and homeless services that come with a measure like this. i also wanted to acknowledge, too, as we face national politics of demonization of immigrants and low income people, women and lgbt communities, the comments
at the beginning relating many people that are trying to preserve their homes and their communities as divisive and as factions and is demonizing, to me, is not a way of building broader relations with communities, but i think if we all try to supervisor that are if we listen to each other and work together instead of throwing terms like that come i think we would be a better board of supervisors. >>[applause]. this is a fair share housing impact tech tax. i just urge my colleagues to allow this to go to the full board so we can have this discussion and decide on the future of it at a board meeting tomorrow. i urge moving this forward so that we can have a discussion at the full board. >> thank you. supervisor tang is nice but in deference to
supervisor peskin who is a co-author. >> let me concur with the chief author supervisor mar and his courage for bringing this for. i want to add one little piece of history which i think many people in the government and in the public have forgotten about. which is that the city used to actually tax the stock options from our initial public offerings. it was a few years ago that provision was removed and the reason i raise that is because this is also about equity and fairness relative to the tech industry used to pay when initial public offering was offered. so, i think that should also be part of the ongoing conversation, whether
it's tomorrow or next year or the year after that. when you combine $34 million a year in the twitter tax break and you combine the loss of the ipo money that the city needs to realize that's pretty significant and i think it is time to have a more fair equitable tax structure as relates to some of the largest billion-dollar corporations that are headquartered here in san francisco. >> supervisor tang >> thank you. a couple thoughts and thank you everyone for sharing your comments with us. i think a lot of it surrounded housing and affordability and the desire to stay here in san francisco, which is obsolete ago i showed supervisor mar. one of the things that they working on to do with the housing situation here in san francisco is to actually create more affordable housing for the low very low and middle income households here. historically we've actually done nothing in the city drop support this and try to moment to the middle income families living here. not to mention family units but not
just building studios that are cheaper to build but actually a family cannot grow and stay in one of those. so all that said, i been pushing for efforts and many of you have probably read about but i can actually name maybe three supervisors here in this committee that actually have not been supportive of what i been working on here. it's been really challenging it is to call it out. we have to do more to find alternative ways to support affordable housing development here in san francisco. if i is a website supervisor taking the risk to do that, to put myself on a limb , to upset people don't want housing be developed in the backyard, well i'm doing that because i do believe there's opportunities to build housing along the transit and commercial corridor where the right now the areas where the one-story buildings along transit corridors do we could do more there. i think that calls for creative solutions not just for one of percent of
what housing but also for market rate housing so people can't afford to live at market rate has and can go there so it frees up the units that are more affordable for the people who need of lower income housing. so that something that again i've been putting myself out on incredible limb four is represented by the westside which has historically been very insightful as he developments. secondly this month i'm actually can be launching a program very soon in conjunction with the mayor's office of housing community development and two nonprofits where we are going to try to find solutions to bear all people almost like eight home matching service matching people and matching homes modeled off of a successful 30 year old. in san mateo. we are trying to pair a people were 90% of the area median income or below with people that housing and might want to offer some space to a tenant. so again i'm trying to find that creative solutions hearing none, and are very challenging
with you in san francisco so that more different types of families can live here so that we can continue to promote the diversity in various cultures we have here. which is what attracted many of us to be heard. so come i know again this conversation is around a tax on technology but really hearing from all of you a lot of the underlying comments around affordable housing. let's work together to do that and let's stop fighting those efforts. so, come falwell picking up my efforts on affordable housing bonus program that lets work together. >> supervisor yee >> thank you. as you can tell from the comments of supervisor tang many of us are trying to find different ways to get to the same problem. they're just different ways there's no one solution to this. i commend anybody that presents any effort to find the solutions. that is i think i might've said that earlier that the goals of
the revenue-i don't think anybody is arguing with that. it's really what is the process there. yes, the density bonus piece that supervisor tang talked about, i think we all voted for it. 11-0 >> that was one of percent affordable portion only. which we build on average one or two each year on the city. >> thank you but we didn't vote for that. one of the things i want to do is today is to-i don't think this is the solution. i think there is a problem. when mr. turk came and said supervisor mar did not reach out, i would like to say that i don't think many of us have reached out either way.. so, whether we could decide one way or another i face criticism for me also and for the tech
company for not reaching out. so we all have something some blame in this. what i would like to do is i would like to move this out of committee with a negative recommendation and just to have that discussion at the full board. i think is really important discussion that it be continued and even though i don't feel like this is the solution, we could generate other ideas as we keep on continuing to talk about this. so i am making a motion. >> with a motion by supervisor yee. before we start voting on how to proceed here, i appreciate the comments. i think the supervisor tang mentioned, so much of it was talked about housing displacement. things i don't disagree with either. the past four years budget chair we
put record amounts into new afford of a housing development. we prepare for the long-term as well. i know there's not enough we can do every single day but we are working on it and we do for my perspective we've done more over the last four years than we've ever done at the board of supervisors in terms of this. so i totally agree with it uses the survey around homelessness as well. to supervisor yee point my concern is on this horse here. people don't want to talk about it that way but this is getting one san franciscan against another and comment after comment our people about technology and assumed whether they criticize them for entitlement or otherwise and my perspective it's exactly the wrong approach in san francisco. we need to be building community and not pitting one group of people in san francisco against another. to me that is exactly what this item does. i simply will not support it. while i appreciate we can vote in a second supervisor yee motion i will
not be supporting anything today except for tabling this item because i don't believe it should be will forget i did not even realize the storage of the tech community either but i don't think this is something should move forward at all. so, supervisor peskin >> i just have one comment that corporations are not people. >>[applause] >> supervisor peskin obviously i agree with that. what this does, however and the people i talk to in the technology industry there's some people that have created wealth. there's many others and most people i know technology industry a living different parts of downtime to make ends meet as well. they don't work for companies that make huge wages. they work because they believe in industry invigorated by its. to get those people there being targeted from weatherby the buses were this tax in particular they feel absolute targeted
>> [inaudible] >> by the class that existed today. they feel personally targeted. and demonized. they feel like they were moved out of town as well and wanted people in this room might want that to happen, to me this is not the right solution in san francisco to build our city together supervisor yee >> i just want to say one more last word about my motion. i'm just hoping you don't change your mind what it is but part of what we've been trying to do is to allow for any of these to go forward for discussion and i hate-i know it's late in the game but but certainly, what i saw in the last few weeks was not something i want to relive as a member of the board. >> okay. supervisor yee has made a motion. do we need a second on that mdm. clerk?
okay. will call vote on a motion's >> clarification supervisor yee would you like to refer this item without recommendation? >> i imagine is committee report, yes. >> yes. with a negative recommendation. >> on the motion tang nay yee aye farrell nay. there's two nay one aye. >> that motion fails. >>[gavel] >> any further motions? >> motion to table >> motion by supervisor tang mdm. clerk will call vote on that >> on the motion tang aye yee nay farrell aye there's 2-1.
>> you have to be alert because there is always something coming up that you need to know about. >> i learned to listen to the traffic patterns. sometimes i notice the other pedestrians, they are crossing, on occasion, i have decided i'm going to cross, too. i get to the middle of the intersection, and i find out that the light has changed. >> we need to be able to work and go from one place to the other and have public transportation. the world needs to be open. >> people on disability has the task of addressing all the disability. when we are talk about the sidewalks, ramps, we have very
specific issues. for people blind and low vision, we have the issue of knowing where they are and when the cross. it can be hit or miss. >> at hulk and grove, that sound the the automatic -- it helps people cross the street safely. >> now we have a successful pedestrian signal. >> i push the button, i get an audible message letting me know that i need to wait. when it is safe to cross, not only am i going to get an audible indicator, this button is going to vibrate. so it tells me it is safe.
there is the driller sound and this trigger is vibrating. i am not relying on anything but the actual light change, the light cycle built into it. >> it brings san francisco from one of the major cities in the u.s. to what is going to be the lead city in the country. >> city working on all sorts of things. we are trying to be new and
innovative and go beyond the ada says and make life more successful for people. >> disability rights movement, the city has the overall legal obligation to manage and maintain the accessibility and right of way. with regards to the curb ramps, bounded by a groove border, 12-inch wide border. for people with low vision to get the same information. the shape of the domes, flush transition between the bolt bottom of the ramp and gutter. >> we have a beveled transition
on the change in level, tape on the surfaces, temporary asphalt to fill in level changes, flush transition to temporary wood platform and ramp down into the street under the scaffoldinging. detectable ramps. they are all detectable. nothing down below or protruding that people are going to get snagged up on. smooth clean that nobody is going get caught up on. >> our no. 1 issue is what we see here, the uplifting and shreufting to concrete due too street tree roots.
here is another problem we have with street trees. if i have i was a person blind, this would be an uncomfortable way to find out. >> we don't want to create hazards. >> sometimes vendors put sidewalk cafes where people push the chairs too far out. >> sometimes it can be impassable. so much foot traffic that there is no room for a wheelchair or walker to go by. >> san francisco is a lively street life, it can be an issue with people with visual
disabilities as well. they have these diverting barriers on other side of this tables and chairs area. if people can find thraeur way around it without getting tangled up, it is still fully accessible. >> we don't want anything special. we want people to basically adhere to the regulations and laws as they are on the books now. people can also, just be cognizant if they have stuff on the street, they thaoed to have 48 inches so we can pass, think outside your own spectrum of yourself that there are other people you need to share the sidewalk with. we will all get along better.
>> although san francisco is a hilly place for a whraoel chair user, we seem to be better at most. that doesn't mean we can't continue to improve upon ourselves. >> the public has a clear are -- of travel. we can't be every to make sure that is the place. we have to rely on the place. call 311. give them your name. that goes into a data base. >> it is difficult, still, um to make the case that the disabled community isn't being represented. in some ways we are not. we have a long way to go. >> the city of san francisco is using the most innovative